Campaigns are an economic force

Although the final figures have yet to be analyzed, at least one think tank has determined that the two men vying for president, their campaigns and followers, spent more than a billion dollars on television advertising alone.

Although the final figures have yet to be analyzed, at least one think tank has determined that the two men vying for president, their campaigns and followers, spent more than a billion dollars on television advertising alone.

That figure doesn’t include newspaper, radio, signs or direct-mail advertising, which would serve to nudge that already impressive amount upwards.

North Carolina residents won’t argue with the contention that both candidates worked hard at flexing their advertising budgets in battleground states, including this one.

There was a nonstop barrage of advertising bolstered by the huge number of buys by both campaigns: The two candidates’ official campaigns and their supporters combined to purchase and air an astounding 1,015,615 ads in the period covered by the study, June 1-Oct. 29.

The report was conducted by the Wesleyan University Media Project.

Significantly, ad campaigns can be funded both by the official candidate and his or her organization, outside groups and political action committees — the larger of which are known as “super PACs.” The defining difference between the two groups is that candidates receive lower ad rates than PACs, which must pay ad rates comparable to businesses.

Many assume that political advertising results in a windfall for the broadcast media since there is more money spent by candidates. While that’s true to a degree, as there is more overall spending, what skews those numbers is that federal regulation provides that political candidates receive lower TV ad rates than commercial advertisers.

Therefore, the ad dollars spent on campaigns bring in comparatively less money than the public might assume.

This past political season, Obama supporters fielded a larger number of television ads than did Romney’s supporters, but the Romney camp spent more money, mostly due to the higher ad spending by PACs supporting Romney.

In addition, the Wesleyan study pointed out that states not considered as battleground opportunities saw many fewer political ads than did the ones “in play,” like North Carolina.

In the final analysis, although the most recent political campaigns weren’t the advertising bonanza most outside of the media assume they were, they did succeed in putting valuable funds back into the economy.

Candidates bought materials, traveled, held events and spent cash at a time when income is a welcome thing. There’s nothing wrong with that, although Tar Heels, like much of the rest of the nation, grew understandably weary of the seemingly nonstop advertising.

And for those who simply can’t get enough of politics, they can take heart: In four short years, the country will do it all over again from scratch — ads, mailings, signs, robo-calls and all.